Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.
There can be no contract to breach if the transaction is compelled or coerced, and according to you, businesses and individuals have no choice.
So I will ask you again, and I will assume that any further diversions is an implied confession of your own understood hypocrisy ...
Should a gay owned printing company be forced to manufacture banners and posters printed with anti-gay messages for a christian group who intend to use those posters to protest the upcoming gay rights march?
I'll try typing more slowly, so you can understand.
Ben can deny a KKK group, as they are not protected under anti discrimination laws.
IF Ben enters into a contract with the KKK group, he can not deny the contracted service or he is in breech of contract.
A gay printer can deny printing objectionable material from an anti gay group, because anti gay groups are not protected under anti discrimination laws, neither is objectionable material. They could not deny printing services to a christian church group for their weekly meeting just because they are Christians.
A baker can refuse to make a penis cake for a gay man if he does not make penis cakes. He can not deny the service of making a wedding cake if he offers wedding cakes simply because the person is gay.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.
There can be no contract to breach if the transaction is compelled or coerced, and according to you, businesses and individuals have no choice.
So I will ask you again, and I will assume that any further diversions is an implied confession of your own understood hypocrisy ...
Should a gay owned printing company be forced to manufacture banners and posters printed with anti-gay messages for a christian group who intend to use those posters to protest the upcoming gay rights march?
You're comparing apples with hedgehogs. Anti-gay messages promote hate. The cake in question had no slogans on it, and the baker refused to sell them the cake even before he knew how they wanted it decorated.
Should the gay owned printing company sell blank banners that the Christian groups can decorate themselves? Absolutely.
Should they sell posters with just the name of the group or church on them? Yes, absolutely.
If the baker refused to decorate a cake with "Death to Christians" or "Jesus Sucks!" I would back him 100%.
Blacks were denied access because of LAWS set by the GOVERNMENT. If a proprietor wanted to open his doors to BOTH blacks and whites, he couldn't do it because that would have been illegal. That is completely different from this situation, where the law mandates that a person open his doors to everyone.
You are DEAD TO RIGHTS WRONG .... it's the knife that cuts both ways. A law that forces a door open can force it closed .... the government which has the power to give you everything has the power to take everything away.
The fundamental issue is the freedom of "choice" .. not which choices you might agree or disagree with ... because everyone has different ideas about that ... the issue is each person must have that freedom of choice, else no one has it.
You cannot predict the future ... you may be just fine with the government that is sympathetic to your cause today, but that in no way guarantees that a future government won't be hostile to your cause. Once the power is established to force that baker to provide his service to someone he does not want to serve, YOU have lost your right of choice too. Next year, you may be forced to work for someone you don't want to work for.
You people need to grow up, and start thinking about the long term implications of your grand ideas. And you need to stop being so childishly naive in thinking that the government actually gives a rat's azz about your gay wedding cake All government cares about is the power it secures by using shortsighted people as useful idiots who support destruction of their own damned rights .... albeit, oblivious to the fact that they aren't intelligent enough to realize that is what they are doing.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.
There can be no contract to breach if the transaction is compelled or coerced, and according to you, businesses and individuals have no choice.
So I will ask you again, and I will assume that any further diversions is an implied confession of your own understood hypocrisy ...
Should a gay owned printing company be forced to manufacture banners and posters printed with anti-gay messages for a christian group who intend to use those posters to protest the upcoming gay rights march?
Colorado has an anti-discrimination act which forbids discrimination against, among other groups, homosexuals. That act includes a prohibition against discrimination in public accommodation. A Public accommodation includes restaurants, retail establishments, etc. A bakery which offers goods for retail sale to the general public, constitutes a public accommodation.
Refusal to sell a product to someone because that individual belongs to a legally protected class, when that same product would be sold to others, is an overt violation of the state's anti-discrimination act.
Bakeries can and do refuse to write certain things on a cake. I manage a bakery, and I've refused to allow my decorators to put obscene or otherwise potentially offensive inscriptions on a cake. This is an entirely different matter than refusing to sell a product to someone because they belong to a legally protected class.
As for the hypothetical signmakers; they would be in violation of the act if they refused to do business with someone specifically because they were Christian (a legally protected group via their religious affiliation), or Black, or heterosexual. However, they can refuse to print certain things on the signs--as long as that refusal is made to anyone who requests that specific language.
... A baker can refuse to make a penis cake for a gay man if he does not make penis cakes. He can not deny the service of making a wedding cake if he offers wedding cakes simply because the person is gay.
Cool!
A Penis Cake!!!
I never heard of such a thing!
Does it ... ummm ... lay long on the table, or does it stick up in the air?
You're comparing apples with hedgehogs. Anti-gay messages promote hate.
No, that is just an assumption on your part. Christians will tell you that homosexuality is a sin, and that their message to repent and abstain from such behavior is one which is intended to save the sinners .. not hate them.
Be that as it may, the real point is the freedom to engage in commerce or not, and with whom you choose as a free and independent person.
It's a fundamental principle ... irrespective of the excuse that may be used to strip you of that freedom, either you have it, or you don't. The excuses are just rationalizations for taking that freedom away.
As goes the baker's freedom, goes yours.
Continuing to argue this real basic point shows that you simply don't understand how you are your own worst enemy.
No, that is just an assumption on your part. Christians will tell you that homosexuality is a sin, and that their message to repent and abstain from such behavior is one which is intended to save the sinners .. not hate them.
Be that as it may, the real point is the freedom to engage in commerce or not, and with whom you choose as a free and independent person.
It's a fundamental principle ... irrespective of the excuse that may be used to strip you of that freedom, either you have it, or you don't. The excuses are just rationalizations for taking that freedom away.
As goes the baker's freedom, goes yours.
Continuing to argue this real basic point shows that you simply don't understand how you are your own worst enemy.
Yes, yes, yes. You're the only one who understands.
Cloak your bigotry and discrimination in religious terms all you want, but it's still bigotry and discrimination.
A lot of people really don't care what you or anyone else thinks is a sin. I personally don't believe in any such thing, but you have no right to deny me a service just because YOU believe everything's a sin.
I'll bet the baker sells cakes to people who defile themselves at night. That's a sin, too.
Funny how some Christians only play the Sin Card when it comes to homosexuality.
Colorado has an anti-discrimination act which forbids discrimination against, among other groups, homosexuals. That act includes a prohibition against discrimination in public accommodation. A Public accommodation includes restaurants, retail establishments, etc. A bakery which offers goods for retail sale to the general public, constitutes a public accommodation.
Refusal to sell a product to someone because that individual belongs to a legally protected class, when that same product would be sold to others, is an overt violation of the state's anti-discrimination act.
Bakeries can and do refuse to write certain things on a cake. I manage a bakery, and I've refused to allow my decorators to put obscene or otherwise potentially offensive inscriptions on a cake. This is an entirely different matter than refusing to sell a product to someone because they belong to a legally protected class.
As for the hypothetical signmakers; they would be in violation of the act if they refused to do business with someone specifically because they were Christian (a legally protected group via their religious affiliation), or Black, or heterosexual. However, they can refuse to print certain things on the signs--as long as that refusal is made to anyone who requests that specific language.
Thanks for the breakdown of Colorado law ... but the issue is not what the law says, but whether the law is appropriate and constitutional .... there are many laws that run afoul to the principles of the constitution. And of course, you appear to be knowledgable enough to understand that statutory law does not and cannot supercede constitutional law, yes?
While on the subject of protected classes ... the one class that is SPECIFICALLY protected under the constitution is freedom of relgion. In the case of the Christian baker who claims that his religious beliefs prohibit him from making a "gay wedding cake" is supportable and documentable, as there are prohibitions on homosexuality in the bible. I'm not defending that, nor an I agreeing or disagreeing with the person'ss claim that it violates his religious beliefs to make that cake ... I'm just pointing out that there is supporting evidence for that claim.
Consequently, he should not be forced to do what he feels violates his religous beliefs, because they are protected, and no statutory law can override that. Furthermore, I think it safe to assume that common law is violated by anti-discrimation laws that force unwilling parties to engage in commerce against their will, which in my opiniom an even more important principle of freedom, because you cannot destroy the fundamentals of free association, and especially when it comes to your own labor. You either own your labor, or you don't ..... and if you don't own it, you are a slave.
I contend that you cannot have a just and free society comprised of slaves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, you are seriously chasing your own tail here.
All government cares about is the power it secures by using shortsighted people as useful idiots who support destruction of their own damned rights .... albeit, oblivious to the fact that they aren't intelligent enough to realize that is what they are doing.
